Good Morning

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 08/17/2020 at 09:05 • Filed to: wingspan, Planelopnik

5

23

How bout we start this week by going FAST .

In the background is the unmistakable form of the massive North American XB-70 Valkyrie, one of two prototype Mach 3+ strategic bombers designed to fly deep into Soviet territory to drop nukes on the Russkies. The arrival of Russian surface-to-air missiles put the kibosh on that mission, so the Air Force tried to turn in into a high-speed low level bomber, though it eventually gave up on the project. One of the prototypes was lost in a midair collision, and the remaining example went to NASA for testing until it was retired in 1969.

The aircraft in the front is the rocket-powered North American X-15A-2. The A-2 was lengthened over the original X-15 and fitted with external fuel tanks. It was also covered in an ablative coating to help reduce heat at super high speeds. That coating was pink, and since real men don’t fly pink airplanes, it was covered in a coat of white paint. In 1967, test pilot Pete Knight flew the X-15A-2 to a speed of Mach 6.7 (4,520 mph) at an altitude of 102,100 feet, a record that remains unbroken to this day.

shop-teacher > ttyymmnn 08/17/2020 at 09:23

2

The Valkyrie blew my mind when I went to the Air Force museum a few years ago. It's freaking ENORMOUS!!!!

InFierority Complex > ttyymmnn 08/17/2020 at 09:30

2

“real men don’t play pink airplanes”

Oh really,  now?

Ash78, voting early and often > ttyymmnn 08/17/2020 at 09:45

0

I was always fascinated with the X-15 as a kid, at least until my dad explained that it wasn’t really flying, it was more just strapping some rockets on a fuselage, catching a ride, then going into low orbit for a few minutes .

Honestly, it made me appreciate the SR-71 a lot more.

For Sweden > ttyymmnn 08/17/2020 at 09:46

1

You, simple, provincial: Why do you need a Mach 3 nuclear strike bomber

Me, an intellectual:

kanadanmajava1 > ttyymmnn 08/17/2020 at 09:46

1

The UK and the US both used a handful of pink fighter planes   during the WWII. A pparently this was a good camouflage color in certain condition (flying during dusk and dawn). Here’s a Spitfire but at least pink   P-40Ns and P-39Qs existed too .

There’ s no information about other countries using pink p la nes but likely some did exist.

ttyymmnn > kanadanmajava1 08/17/2020 at 09:55

0

When they were working on the F-117, they determined that pink was the best color for low visibility at night, but again, real men don’t fly pink airplanes.

ttyymmnn > shop-teacher 08/17/2020 at 09:57

2

user314 > ttyymmnn 08/17/2020 at 10:09

1

And in doing so they damn near destroyed the X-15 and killed Pete Knight.

The problem with doing things for the first time is that you occasionally encounter something you weren’t expecting. In this case, unexpected boundary layer/shockwave heating on the ventral fuselage melted through the ablative layer, then the Inconel-X skin of the X-15, which resulted in:

a high-heat warning from the XLR-99 rocket engine

the fuel vent tubes being welded shut, resulting in a fast and heavy landing

the pylon for the dummy ramjet burning away, taking the ramjet with it

The X-15A-2 was so damaged it never flew again. North American proposed rebuilding the craft with a delta wing (and maybe launching it off the back of the XB-70), but the X-15 program was winding down, and there was no funding for either idea. They wound up repairing the X-15 enough to make it presentable, and added it to the USAF Museum collection. 

shop-teacher > ttyymmnn 08/17/2020 at 10:57

1

Pictures really don't do it justice.

Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom > ttyymmnn 08/17/2020 at 11:59

2

About 15 years ago I delivered a Saratoga to a USAF colonel based at Wright-Patterson. When we got there he gave us a tour of the museum, and we got to see stuff not open to the public. The Valk was in a separate hangar with a bunch of other planes, and when you walked in it just dominated the entire space. Standing under it looking up, that thing was damned impressive. 

SBA Thanks You For All The Fish > ttyymmnn 08/17/2020 at 12:18

2

People don’t really “get” the true magnificence of the Valkyrie until they see the “business end”. This still gives me “aviation wood”...

Six of those big boy exhausts— and folding wingtips.

ttyymmnn > Turbineguy: Nom de Zoom 08/17/2020 at 12:18

1

My wife and I went to the AF Museum about 20 years ago and yes, you had to buy a separate ticket and ride a bus to see the Valkyrie. We didn’t do that. The recently completed 4th hangar that houses the Valkyrie opened a few years ago, and it’s stunning. As you can see in that photo I posted to shop-teacher, the XB-70 utterly dominates the space.

ttyymmnn > SBA Thanks You For All The Fish 08/17/2020 at 12:20

0

Behold, the six-pack. At the USAF museum, you can stand right under it, then you really get a sense for the size.

ADabOfOppo; Gone Plaid (Instructables Can Be Confusable) > ttyymmnn 08/17/2020 at 12:32

1

I used to volunteer for the NMUSAF and had the limited access pass that let me work in the then on-base gallery that housed the Valkyrie. It utterly dominated that space and having all those other batshit crazy planes parked so closely around it just made it all that more impressive.

You can still smell octane when you walk under the back end of it.

And though you aren’t supposed to, I admit to a few light touches when walking the gallery. It was too awe inspiring not to.

SBA Thanks You For All The Fish > ttyymmnn 08/17/2020 at 12:47

1

Yeah, it’s my favorite view in the whole museum. Just gazing at Mach 3 thrust personified...

It would have been a magnificent weapon. Despite “being obsolete”. I do find it interesting that the same criticisms could/would have been thrown at the BONE— and yet that airframe is a marvel of versatility.

Plus, who doesn’t get weepy at the sight of BONE night departures , with burners full on?

user314 > ttyymmnn 08/17/2020 at 14:45

0

There’s also the Time pic of the guy just barely crouching in front of the intake:

Or the other pic of the two workers sitting further back in the duct:

The B-70 was an absolute unit. 

user314 > Ash78, voting early and often 08/17/2020 at 14:58

1

Excuse a minor bit of pedantry , but the X-15 didn’t orbit. It flew out into space (or high enough to not make a difference ) , turned around and came back. The five USAF pilots who went above 50 miles got astronaut wings at the time, but the three NASA employees didn’t get theirs  until 2004, and for two of them it was posthumously.

Ash78, voting early and often > user314 08/17/2020 at 15:39

0

No worries, thanks for the clarification, I misspoke.

user314 > SBA Thanks You For All The Fish 08/17/2020 at 16:10

2

Those wingtip s, as well as the main oleos, would have been maintenance nightmares had the Valk made it to production.

ttyymmnn > user314 08/17/2020 at 16:17

1

It probably would have been a one-way mission, so maintenance would have been minimal.

SBA Thanks You For All The Fish > user314 08/17/2020 at 16:19

3

Heh. Folding wingtips. What could go wrong? We have the best contract engineers and job-shop programmers we could out-source working on it...

  “Oh, wait, let me get back to you on that...”

user314 > ttyymmnn 08/17/2020 at 16:42

0

Fair point. 

ttyymmnn > SBA Thanks You For All The Fish 08/17/2020 at 16:46

1

Don’t worry, I’m sure it was thoroughly tested and meets or exceeds all FAA requirements for safety and construction.